I just want to throw this out there, it's pretty well known amongst us gear makers that cubic has been having problems keeping up with demand and also had issues producing the 54" cuben due to a problem with some equipment lately.

There may be a very big chance that there are some significant material or manufacturing differences between two batches of the same "code" CTF.

I've definitely noticed differences in spectra density and hand from one batch of "the same" stuff to another.

I'm going to be sending in a sample of CT2K08 I got from Joe in the 51" wide variety when they were having production problems, and some CT3.5K18 I got directly from Cubic shortly there after.

I'm betting there's a good chance that as we see more samples from different "delivery dates", we're going to see some big variations.

Supplemental information from by Greg Mihalik:detailed description of the material you want tested -CTO.6k.08 Cuben, use for a tent flypurchase source -gratis, from tent vendorsource description of material -Cubic Tech, special dye-lot runcomment- If this sample needs an identifier, please include HLl as part of it

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:The material arrived neatly folded with no pronounced crinkle marks; they were extensive crinkle marks in the first low HH test sample from an earlier thread and minor crinkle marks in the second sample from Kenneth Larson with low HH.

Could you please be soo kind as to remove the the link to the Omni Bivy, that you have include in the information about the 20D taffeta fabric provided by Ben Smith. Titanium Goat does not build anything with the 20D taffeta material that you tested, our Bivy tops are the 20D ripstop Intrepid.

Supplemental information from by Dan Durston: The source was Zpacks.com in the fall of 2010

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:The material arrived neatly folded with no crinkle marks; they were extensive crinkle marks in the first low HH test sample from an earlier thread and minor crinkle marks in the second sample from Kenneth Larson with low HH.

Supplemental information from by Dan Durston: The source was Quest Outfitters in the fall of 2010.

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:This material does not meet the minimum ISO 811 standards for rain proof. The material arrived with light crinkle marks indicating that it may of have been stuffed at least one time. The appearance is in stark contrast to the recently submitted samples which showed no crinkle marks.

On 4/31/11 after already having sent sample A to Roger, I noticed that sample B had margin section with no reinforcing threads. I decided to test Sample B in three non-overlapping locations away from the area where the reinforcing threads were not present. The results varied significantly depending on the location of the testing head. One test area was 351 mm H2O, one spot showed two spots near 351 mm H2O and never showed a third spot through 3,515 mm H2O, the last spot tested >3,515 mm H20.

Note to Dan Durston: Please make a post to this forum thread with any information you might have relative to the handling history of this sample.

I got this 0.33oz cuben from Quest in a 1 yd piece. It came folded up into a fairly small packet. I unfolded it once to cut off a piece and then re-folded it up to fit into a small ziplock bag. It wasn't unfolded again until I unfolded it to cut this sample. So Quest folded it once and I unfolded/folded/unfolded it. I think the reason that it looks quite a bit more wrinkled than the 1.26oz sample is because 0.33oz cuben creases and wrinkles much easier. 1.26 oz cuben is much stiffer, so it's more resistant to creases/wrinkles.

Gotta say I'm pretty surprised the .33oz stuff had an HH that high, simply considering the fragility of the shell laminates.

I expect that stuff to really degrade with "aging", just from my experience working with it. I'd be really curious to see how mylar film of the equivalent thickness as used in this laminate would fare solo. With the thin stuff, it's easy to see how over time the spectra would impede those numbers since mylar stretches and the spectra doesn't.

Every new submission will have its initial test result published the day that it is received. This will occur regardless if the aging test cycles may have started for the first batch's submissions. We will stop accepting new submissions when we decide to end Protocol B batch aging tests (explained below).

My plan is to begin aging tests on all coated submissions (Cuben, silnylon, sil/PU nylon, and PU coated nylon/polyester) in multiple batches. All submissions received by this Saturday mid-day will be categorized as the first batch submissions. Before my local post office closes this Saturday, all virgin submissions received to date, will be shipped to Roger Caffin. The submission number, determined by the order received, followed by the letter (A) is labeled with a permanent marker in the upper left corner for each submission. These (A) sample submissions are the ones that I have posted virgin results for in the Protocol B thread.

I will begin aging tests for the submissions labeled (B) starting Monday. After each aging cycle, I will post the results for each (B) submission, in the batch, to the Protocol B forum. After the 8 aging cycles are complete, all (B) aged samples in the batch, labeled with the submission number followed by (B) in the upper left corner will then be shipped to Roger via BPL Bozeman.

A new batch aging cycle will begin after the prior one ends. Additional batches will continue to be aged only until the point that Roger and I agree that enough data has been collected for any reasonable person to draw an informed conclusion; other commitments in our lives dictate that we suspend Protocol B testing; or some new protocol is required to resolve unanswered questions.

In parallel with the above heavy testing schedule, I will attempt to honor the requests for higher resolution micrographs and micrographs at more testing stages. I have begun to look at options to accomplish these requests. I will propose a new micrograph plan and provide sample results for review and discussion by the end of next week.

Supplemental Information from Seattle Fabrics:1.3 oz. silicone impregnated 30 denier, high tenacity, bright nylon ripstop with heat and light inhibitors. This amazing fabric has a tear strength of 15 pounds. Using this material is a great way to reduce weight.

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:According to ISO 811, materials with a hydrostatic head of more than 150 cm (1,500mm) can be designated, in general, as rainproof.

Supplemental Information from Seattle Fabrics:1.9 oz. sq. yd. before coating 70 Denier. This urethane coated nylon has a strong thread that goes up and across the fabric forming tear resistant squares. It has 8-10lb tear strength. The addition of urethane coating makes this a strong yet lightweight waterproof fabric for many uses.

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:According to ISO 811, materials with a hydrostatic head of more than 150 cm (1,500mm) can be designated, in general, as rainproof.

Supplemental Information from Seattle Fabrics:1.9 oz. sq yd before coating 70 Denier. The silicone coating is lighter than a polyurethane coating and the silicone coated ripstop has a 16-18 lb tear strength making it more tear resistant than the polyurethane coated ripstop. Be sure to use a silicone sealer on the seams

Supplemental information from Richard Nisley:According to ISO 811, materials with a hydrostatic head of more than 150 cm (1,500mm) can be designated, in general, as rainproof.

A single Protocol B aging cycle results in rapid degradation of all common light weight shelter fabrics other than Epic Alpine. There is no point of doing additional aging cycles for batch submission 1 due to the dramatic reductions in HH experienced for most products. If other batch submissions are needed, a "Delicate" wash cycle will probably provide a small enough HH reduction granularity that it can be plotted.

I took pictures of every test head position and created a written record of the general locations of the major voids for each CTF3 (Cuben) test. This information is voluminous and if posted, will be done at a later time.

Until my testing is duplicated by Roger Caffin in part or in total, all data is just one fallible man's opinion. It is my attempt at trying to understand how different light weight shelter materials test in both their virgin state and after a simulation of real world rain storms, stuffing, and un-stuffing.

My current preliminary understanding is based on limited data that has not been verified nor exhaustively analyzed:

-Virgin tests are a reasonable indicator of initial shelter material quality. If you are a recreational user, this information should be adequate to make a buying decision.

-For expedition users (defined as multi-month) ventures in routinely bad weather, such as coastal Alaska and other long distance trail hiking during the rainy season. (I routinely do these types of trips and this is the primary reason I started looking for answers.) For this class of users, interested in the lightest possible weight achievable through CTF3 variants, it appears that only CT1K.18 and up (defined as .18 Mylar with varying amounts of Spectra) products will maintain the ISO 811 minimum of 1,500 mm H2O after the simulated aging defined in Protocol B.

-Lighter weight CTF3 materials appear to degrade at a rate similar to silnylon and at a slower rate than PU coated fabrics. Whereas silnylon and PU coated fabrics can be rejuvenated, I am not aware of any well tested method to recover CTF3 HH once lost. This by no means is to say that there are no CTF3 HH recovery options, just none that have been both tested for efficacy and are easily found via Google.

-Only one silnylon/PU combo product was tested. Its degradation was restricted to a single horizontal thread. If this is not a repeatable phenomenon, this material seems to be superior to PU coated fabrics as it relates to both weight and HH degradation.

-Last but not least it is interesting to note that I wanted to determine if what I experienced in the real world with my CTF3 tarp's rapid degradation could be simulated. Anyone with a DIY HH tester, as designed by Lance Marshal, a home washing machine, and a small sample of any tent shelter material should be able to not only duplicate my tests but more importantly add to our collective knowledge base.

-To all those that provided test samples, A BIG THANK YOU. Nothing new would be known without your assistance.

-To all those who will do their independent testing, also A BIG THANK YOU. I have more questions than I do answers and I eagerly await your discoveries.

The following is a photo set showing the head positioning for the CTF3 (Cuben) tested in the batch 1 first aging test. Augmenting these photos are paper charts showing the general locations of leak areas relative to the tester's head position. The paper charts will be mailed to Roger Caffin along with the batch 1 aging submissions soon since I don’t think there is any benefit from additional batch 1 aging tests. WPB manufacturers such as Patagonia and Gore-Tex normally test their products with 10 -20x the iterations using the same aging procedure. Most of the UL shelter materials can only handle one cycle,at most.

1.26oz cuben (CT3.5K.18) seems like a great material with it's >2000mm HH after the abuse cycle. CT1K.18 which also uses the same thicker mylar layers might be a great material too, but the post-aging results really vary so it's harder to trust the average HH.